On Being Human

On being Human

It would seem many of us take it for granted that we are human. That we can think, feel, create, dance, cry, eat, make love, grow, and die. To ask what it means to be human, was once one of the most important endeavors an individual or a community could interact with. Religion, science, art, and philosophy are all born from this question.

I wonder why as we stand at the threshold of our own self-induced deconstruction do we forgo the quintessential existential self-exploration. It seems we have stopped asking that timeless beautiful heartbreaking never-ending question, the process that connects us with the cosmos, and the resonance that fractures the bonds society has enchained us by. This question, what does it mean to be human?

Being human is a lifelong experience. It is both a given and something one must strive for. It could be said that no matter what we do, we are being human since we humans are doing it. Yet in the same breath, it is undeniable that there exists experiences that are not human, such as the experience of tree. We must do the impossible task of both critically looking at our own lives, the lives of other humans, and the lives of other non-humans. We must insist that this is not an objective pursuit, that what we come to believe is a non-truth. That only in non-truth do we get to be part of something greater than ourselves. That pure subjectivity and relativism is just as much a hindrance as objectivity. That our salvation rests in not wanting to be saved. That truth exists in the absence of facts, dogma, certainty, and proof.

We can only really begin to live once we die. That is because death is an undoing. There is so much unknown, every discovery when we are honest leads to more questions so that being human is not about knowing but about being. It would seem there are forces at play by the fact that we have so much freedom, that we tend to limit ourselves by wanting the safety and security of wanting to live a predetermined life as a thing. To describe the human experience as a play or a video game is to adopt a

outlook on life. Our addiction to technology is using our ability of imagination, critical thinking, and creation against us. We are such powerful creators that we are allowing our creations to create us. We are functioning as things, as commodities, as means to an end, as victims, as billiard balls, and leaves blowing in the wind.

I am of the opinion that to ask what it means to be human is the most important and fundamental human endeavor. One might say but we need to eat and sleep, surely those must be of more importance. I would say try to defy eating and sleeping and see what happens. You will find yourself eating in your sleep. How can something one must do be the most important? If one must do it then it just is. Importance comes from choice, the ability to do otherwise, to think otherwise, and act otherwise. Eating and sleeping just are. They are part of the conversation, not the conversation itself. Ask yourself why you need to eat, ask why do you eat what you eat, ask how do you eat what you eat, and ask where and how you get what you eat? There is nothing that humans do or create: art, ethics, politics, communication, commerce, science, religion, etc. that does not stem from being human. We get confused and pacified when we desire objective truths. We spend so much energy forcing an existence upon ourselves and others based on facts that just disproved other facts and that will undoubtedly be disproven by new facts.

We are obsessed with an objective reality, yet when we are honest, meaning comes from those things which do not have objective or stagnate answers, such as one's love for their children, a favorite hobby or pastime, or the way a poem or song makes one feel. In this way, what it means to be human and the asking and cultivation of this question will never be answered objectively. This does not mean we should not try... we need to try and also know in our hearts that us trying is not to solve the question but to promote others to contemplate our thoughts so as to form their own. In this way humanity is connectivity, we are a living growing organism of ideas, creations, and compromises. To ask what it means to be human is to be open and fully engaged with being human.

The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) talks about what it means to be human. He boils down “being” to one of two types of possible existences. Being-in-its self and Being-for-itself. For him most existence is Being-in-itself meaning, a thing it is what is. It is complete in that it is what it will always be and will be. For example, a table is just a table and as soon as it is not a table it is something else, just as a bird is just a bird and a book. Being-in-itself refers primarily to objects in the external world. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects and most animals but not to humans, whom Sartre says always must make choices and in fact are condemned to do so.

Being human for Sartre is the type of being that he calls, Being-for-its-self. This type of being is conscious of its own consciousness, but it is also incomplete, open, and under construction. For Sartre, this incompleteness is what defines a human and makes it different from a tree. A tree is a Being-in-itself and is a being that is complete, it is all it is and is all it ever will be. If by chance, time, or unforeseeable events this type of being changes, it is not actually changing, it is just becoming a different being-in-itself. Being-for-itself, however, has no predetermined essence, it is not complete and is forced to create its self from the nothingness that it is before it begins to create.

For Sartre, nothingness is the defining characteristic of a being-for-itself. A tree is a tree and does not have the ability to modify or create its being. If you break down a tree all you will get is more and more things each being a being-in-itself. However, if you breakdown a human, yes you will get things but eventually you will get to the point where only consciousness exists, you will be left with nothing or no-thing. Instead of being just like the tree which is what it is, the human exists in what it is not. Being nothing until it is able to be something. Sartre asserts that “man is not what he is and is what he is not.” This is because once a human becomes a thing then they are not being-for-itself but being-in-itself which Sartre claims is impossible for a human to do.

This creation from nothingness to Sartre is freedom and as he famously writes, “existence precedes essence…. that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards”. What Sartre is describing is the development of the free individual, where one comes into existence as a means to create what it means to exist. In other words, to be free is the ability to define oneself. For Sartre, the ability to be free stems from his understanding that we are fundamentally free, to be born a human is to be born free. Sartre states, “We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free”. No matter what we do according to Sartre we are free, we are blessed with self-mastery which enables self-awareness and the ability to objectively take responsibility through action to personalize and create our own identity (essence). Yet humans can and pretty much always trick themselves into thinking they are not free or a being-in-itself. Sartre calls this trick Bad Faith.

Bad Faith is at the center of what one might call an existential crisis. It stems from Sartre’s notion that we are fundamentally free yet we self-impose (use our own freedom to) shackles and deny our responsibility when we identify as a being-in-itself. Sartre gives an example of a waiter in a café who decided to identify as a waiter (being-in-itself), which Sartre says is impossible since he cannot be a waiter in the sense that a tree can be a tree. What the waiter is and can only be, is a human (being-for-itself), who happens to be functioning as a waiter at that moment but really has no fixed nature or essence and who is constantly recreating himself. What bad faith is then is focusing on oneself as a being-in-itself and not being-for-itself? In other words, bad faith is when a human adopts an understanding of her or himself that he or she is a thing such as a waiter, a soldier, a father, or even an angry person or a kind person. For example, if I have a belief that I am brave and tell everyone that I am brave I have entered into bad faith. The only wat to truly be brave is I the moment when my actions make me brave. There is no honest, brave, bad, or angry being-for-itself there is only the action of creation - bad faith is when we live off the laurels of past creations and deeds. Bad faith is paradoxical because when acting in bad faith, a person is actively denying their own freedom, yet they are using their freedom to perform the denial.

If we follow Sartre's argument then what it means to be human is to be a creator. It is to be responsible and ever-changing. Humans are creating beings who at times forget their innate complexity and enters into bad faith. The social and political implications of Sartre’s thoughts are immense. Does our culture promote human freedom or condition bad faith? Are there certain human endeavors that promote human freedom more than others? Can people create in bad faith?

What does it mean to be human? Where do great ideas, cultural phenomenon, and daily life intersect? I would love the opportunity to invite your readers to participate in an ongoing conversation about fundamental western questions and how they relate to the concept of creativity. Fundamentally art is the act of creation, yet why does one feel the need to create, is all created equal, what is the impact of creating, does creation have moral implications, etc.

#Freedon #Human